Foreign Manufacturers Ripping Off Thai Brands

[Piengrudee]

Farang is copying our Jasmin rice, green curry, and Kai Jiew Moo Sup.

[Thaddeus]

LOL -- It looks like the shoe is on the other foot, but I seriously doubt they can see that.

Farang is copying our Jasmin rice, green curry, and Kai Jiew Moo Sup.

I think you're right.

[softgeorge]

Farang is copying our Jasmin rice, green curry, and Kai Jiew Moo Sup.

You have me cornered there. I did make a green chicken curry last night and served it with jasmine rice grown in Australia. Yes I am guilty as charged..... When you come for me please be gentle..

[LomSak27]

Thailand is complaining that other countries are not honoring their copyright protected goods? You have to admire their audacity.

Of course in South east Asia we would call that Bad Karma.

[JatujakShopper]

Sorry, just the title made me laugh and laugh!!!!!

[bangon04]

Thailand has never systematically policed intellectual property - apart from very few arrests for show, it is not only very easy to find fake goods, it is virtually impossible to avoid fake goods especially in Bangkok. The main reason for this is because until now fake goods only hurt mainly foreign manufacturers. If Thai incomes and jobs are not affected by an activity, and profits can be made, then why bother enforcing the law.<div><br></div><div>Now that Thailand is starting to suffer from serious infringement of intellectual property rights, perhaps we will see some enforcement of IP rights in Thailand for a change.</div>

Maybe I live in the wrong part of town, but everytime there is a new Thai movie in the cinema - you know the type - "Ghost Story of the Week" or "Katoeys and Dwarves farting : The sequel" always starring the same 6 Thai "comic" stars, then instead of being dragged to the movies by my family, i would much prefer to buy a pirated DVD. But no - the stall vendors say "Too dangerous. Cannot"

So there is some policing of pirated DVDs when the "intellectual" content belongs to a Thai moviemaker. They are not available copied until after the official DVD is released.

Harry Potter movies are available as pirate DVDs at least 6 weeks before they are premiered in new York, complete with comic subtitles.

[bangon04]

Farang is copying our Jasmin rice, green curry, and Kai Jiew Moo Sup.

Surely all responsible and fair minded Farang first check the label to ensure that the copyright is acknowledged on the side of the can.

Personally i never use the words "curry" or "green" in a sentence without first thinking of the implications for Thai intellectual reservoir of talent.

And i can honestly say I almost never use the word "Sup".

[MAJIC]

Rich Farang bankers ripping off poor Thai farmers.Stand Chrt, HSVC, UOB, CIMB, B of Scot, Citibank etc, are just some example that sucks poor Thai farmers dry with high interest rate.

So where does Kasikorn...Siam Commercial...Bangkok Bank... and Bank of Ayuttya....and any other Thai Bank come into your narrow minded equation?

Do they give free loans to Thai Farmers?

[dominique355]

So "bastardization" may be a bit harsh, it's rather a natural development in a free market system with competition as the motor of development.

No, it is only the natural development in an anti-free market setup of corporatism.

The only ones that truly benefit from it is multinational or other huge corporations, not SMBs.

It is very rare to find any hard proponents of a truly free market that is pro-IP laws. And they are reducing in numbers...

Well, we have seen an economic system where IP rights were only on paper, no real reward for development and inventiveness and it failed miserably: communism.

In fact, as soon as a country started to truly commit to protecting intellectual property, instead of allowing stealing, the economy has gone up. If inventiveness and investment into R & D cannot be protected, who would invest? Who would risk new development? Look at Taiwan, Hongkong, Japan and compare to Thailand.

Free market without protection of intellectual property is simply not "free" market.

There are plenty of examples of single guys and small companies coming up with a brilliant idea, protecting it, exploiting it and making a success. In fact, the so-called SMEs would not survive without IP rights, which allow them to survive next to the big companies.

This just isn't true. The reality is that examples ranging in the hundreds and more of big companies misusing IP laws to their own benefit (including filing over-scoping patents or patents that suffer from prior art disqualification) where a small company has neither the time nor means to fight it and therefor have to comply with licensing against the larger company - while most large companies (I am talking about the computer technology and software world now) sign exchange-deals in range of thousands of patents that they interchange with each-other at no cost as they therefor both gain access to the patents and also don't have to spend time or energy dealing with the issues...

Or maybe we should bring up the whole fraudulent submarine-filing of patents? Or companies that have never created a product but still owning hundreds of patents and living on licensing-fee's these filings bring them as they are filing claims against large number of technology companies?

IP laws, trademarks, copyrights or patents, are NOT a pre-requisite for a free and open market - it is the opposite. Patents are a government-enforced monopoly. Nothing free about that.

Oh, I should forward your idea that the lack of IP laws would equate with communism. A few scholars will have fun with that quote. Including some Nobel laureates.

Reading for some:

http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?limit=0&chunk=0&topic=IP%20Law

http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/research/researchareas/whoownsscience/

http://blog.mises.org/13302/without-rejecting-ip-progress-is-impossible/

http://blog.mises.org/14363/intellectual-property-as-socialistic-human-rights/

So basically, what you are saying is that whoever made an invention, invested time and money in developing a new product, invested time and effort in creating a new brand MUST then give it for free to everyone to exploit? Because that would be a really "free market"?

I wonder what idiot would invest one single dollar (or euro or baht) in a new product when he can simply steal other people's creations.

Stop dreaming and wake up to reality!

[TAWP]

This just isn't true. The reality is that examples ranging in the hundreds and more of big companies misusing IP laws to their own benefit (including filing over-scoping patents or patents that suffer from prior art disqualification) where a small company has neither the time nor means to fight it and therefor have to comply with licensing against the larger company - while most large companies (I am talking about the computer technology and software world now) sign exchange-deals in range of thousands of patents that they interchange with each-other at no cost as they therefor both gain access to the patents and also don't have to spend time or energy dealing with the issues...

Or maybe we should bring up the whole fraudulent submarine-filing of patents? Or companies that have never created a product but still owning hundreds of patents and living on licensing-fee's these filings bring them as they are filing claims against large number of technology companies?

IP laws, trademarks, copyrights or patents, are NOT a pre-requisite for a free and open market - it is the opposite. Patents are a government-enforced monopoly. Nothing free about that.

Oh, I should forward your idea that the lack of IP laws would equate with communism. A few scholars will have fun with that quote. Including some Nobel laureates.

Reading for some:

http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?limit=0&chunk=0&topic=IP%20Law

http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/research/researchareas/whoownsscience/

http://blog.mises.org/13302/without-rejecting-ip-progress-is-impossible/

http://blog.mises.org/14363/intellectual-property-as-socialistic-human-rights/

So basically, what you are saying is that whoever made an invention, invested time and money in developing a new product, invested time and effort in creating a new brand MUST then give it for free to everyone to exploit? Because that would be a really "free market"?

I wonder what idiot would invest one single dollar (or euro or baht) in a new product when he can simply steal other people's creations.

Stop dreaming and wake up to reality!

Your strawman was expected.

You don't have to share your invention with anyone. You can put it in a cave and hide it forever. You have however no right in prohibiting someone else from inventing the same thing. Or a derived version. Or a similar invention.

Your opinion that no-one would invent something without patents are countered by a few thousand years of inventions...but go ahead, scream about how unfair it is if someone else builds something similar and are able to give people in third world countries access to it...

[dominique355]

This just isn't true. The reality is that examples ranging in the hundreds and more of big companies misusing IP laws to their own benefit (including filing over-scoping patents or patents that suffer from prior art disqualification) where a small company has neither the time nor means to fight it and therefor have to comply with licensing against the larger company - while most large companies (I am talking about the computer technology and software world now) sign exchange-deals in range of thousands of patents that they interchange with each-other at no cost as they therefor both gain access to the patents and also don't have to spend time or energy dealing with the issues...

Or maybe we should bring up the whole fraudulent submarine-filing of patents? Or companies that have never created a product but still owning hundreds of patents and living on licensing-fee's these filings bring them as they are filing claims against large number of technology companies?

IP laws, trademarks, copyrights or patents, are NOT a pre-requisite for a free and open market - it is the opposite. Patents are a government-enforced monopoly. Nothing free about that.

Oh, I should forward your idea that the lack of IP laws would equate with communism. A few scholars will have fun with that quote. Including some Nobel laureates.

Reading for some:

http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?limit=0&chunk=0&topic=IP%20Law

http://www.isei.manchester.ac.uk/research/researchareas/whoownsscience/

http://blog.mises.org/13302/without-rejecting-ip-progress-is-impossible/

http://blog.mises.org/14363/intellectual-property-as-socialistic-human-rights/

So basically, what you are saying is that whoever made an invention, invested time and money in developing a new product, invested time and effort in creating a new brand MUST then give it for free to everyone to exploit? Because that would be a really "free market"?

I wonder what idiot would invest one single dollar (or euro or baht) in a new product when he can simply steal other people's creations.

Stop dreaming and wake up to reality!

Your strawman was expected.

You don't have to share your invention with anyone. You can put it in a cave and hide it forever. You have however no right in prohibiting someone else from inventing the same thing. Or a derived version. Or a similar invention.

Your opinion that no-one would invent something without patents are countered by a few thousand years of inventions...but go ahead, scream about how unfair it is if someone else builds something similar and are able to give people in third world countries access to it...

My dear friend, do you know what it takes e.g. to bring a new pharmaceutical product to the market? Well, in short: billions of dollars. Why? Thousands of substances have to be synthesized and screened for activity, then tested for side effects, manufacturing process, galenic forms developed, government approval sought (in several countries). I know, the cost is beyond belief for normal people.

So why would anyone invest in such venture if his investment has absolutely no protection, if anyone can steal it? Can you tell me that? No, you can't.

Sure, there are thousand of years of inventions, but that's the past! Wake up to the 21st century. Sure there still is the "genius" inventor who invents a new pencil sharpener or can opener, but these things are of little interest to mankind.

I am not getting into "derived" or "similar" inventions, because that is too much depending on the specific invention.

The point I am trying to make is that patent protection is a form of protection of investment, and you can't deny that. And without such protection there would be little or no investment into R & D. Simple logic and knowledge of human nature.

[TackyToo]

If Thailand get's rid of all pirated stuff on sale what would be left on the shelves exept "somtham"? Better don't wake sleeping dogs...

[RusticCharm]

And that is called xenophobia or racism.

Jesus H. Christ! wanke_rs playing the race card. Doesn't this Thaier-than-Thai Cossack **** (insert expletive of choice) irritate.

[Hawaiian]

Dominiques355's explanation hit the nail on the head. I would never buy stock in any company

that did not have legal protection of proprietary information. While not a perfect system

copyright and patent laws not only protect the investor, but help to ensure that you receive you are getting what you are paying for.

[TAWP]

Wow, talk about eating up the propaganda...

Please tell me, how is it that the software company I work for now make millions without owning a single patent? According to your logic, they should not be able to...

[WarpSpeed]

Red Bull is not Thai, it is Austrian. Kating Daeng is Thai.

But the product formula is Thai...And that's what's being copied and the issue at hand..

And the ownership amounts are not 50% they are 49% respectively per partner and 2% to the Thai owners son Chalerm.

Edited December 8, 2010 by WarpSpeed

[Hawaiian]

Wow, talk about eating up the propaganda...

Please tell me, how is it that the software company I work for now make millions without owning a single patent? According to your logic, they should not be able to...

Not familiar about software, but why do highly successful companies like Coke and KFC guard their prized formulas?

While having no affinity for the drug companies they do manufacture products that protect peoples health and help

save lives. Yes, there are bad drugs out there that also kill people.

For your information, I know the difference between pure propaganda and valuable facts.

[TAWP]

Wow, talk about eating up the propaganda...

Please tell me, how is it that the software company I work for now make millions without owning a single patent? According to your logic, they should not be able to...

Not familiar about software, but why do highly successful companies like Coke and KFC guard their prized formulas?

While having no affinity for the drug companies they do manufacture products that protect peoples health and help

save lives. Yes, there are bad drugs out there that also kill people.

For your information, I know the difference between pure propaganda and valuable facts.

Wait, what kind of protection is it you think Coke and KFC has regarding their formulas? Please point to the relevant sections in US and/or EU IP law.

[dominique355]

Wow, talk about eating up the propaganda...

Please tell me, how is it that the software company I work for now make millions without owning a single patent? According to your logic, they should not be able to...

Now that's an interesting question.

In most countries, computer software is protected under the copyright laws. Patent protection was not available for application programs, only for system software. Recent developments, especially in the USA made it possible to apply for a patent for what is called "business methods", among which application software. The European Patent Office has (to my knowledge) not yet accepted such patent applications.

In most countries, copyright protection does not make it necessary to file an application (except in the U.S.) and is protected as such with it's creation, starting point for the protection being the publication. (Universal Copyright Convention, Berne Convention).

So it is perfectly possible that a software company does not own any patents and is still protected for its products, can ask for license fees and make profit.

[dominique355]

Wow, talk about eating up the propaganda...

Please tell me, how is it that the software company I work for now make millions without owning a single patent? According to your logic, they should not be able to...

Not familiar about software, but why do highly successful companies like Coke and KFC guard their prized formulas?

While having no affinity for the drug companies they do manufacture products that protect peoples health and help

save lives. Yes, there are bad drugs out there that also kill people.

For your information, I know the difference between pure propaganda and valuable facts.

As far as I know, the formula for Coca-Cola is still kept secret, i.e. it is not subject to patent protection, because that would require disclosure. So The Coca-Cola Co. choose the keep it a secret. How good is this kind of protection? Well, have you seen any similar products? Yes, of course, because it's easy and legal to chemically analyse the brew and find out what are the ingredients. So in my view, this kind of protection is more or less an illusion, or perhaps a good PR gag?

Nobody has ever been prosecuted by Coca-Cola for selling a product with the same (or similar) taste. However, if someone tries to use or imitate their trademark, then he is in big trouble. The most valuable asset of The Coca-Cola Co. is not it's secret formula but the trademark.

[Hawaiian]

I purposely mentioned Coca-Cola for the simple reason that you mentioned. A patent would require divulging the formula. Patents and copyrights are only appropriate for certain products.

About four years ago Pepsico reported to arch rival Coke about an offer from a Coca-Cola

employee to sell the formula. Off course the offer was declined. As you said, the trademark is worth more than the formula.

Closer to home (my home in Hawaii) a well known bakery was accused of stealing the recipe for a popular ethnic bread. The bakery won the dispute, saying the recipe in question called for "x" number of eggs and the bakery used one more egg than the original recipe.

So one could argue all night about laws governing IP. Personally, I feel that these laws

serve a useful purpose and should be enforced when possible.